Page 16 - Chiense TExtiles, MET MUSEUM Pub 1934
P. 16

THE  METROPOLITAN  MUSEUM  OF  ART
                  of Lou-Ian, and the importance of these now established
                  Han fragments cannot be overestimated, particularly in
                  the light they  throw on  the  history of weaves  and  the
                  evolution of pattern. There is every reason to believe that
                  most of these textiles date from at least the first century
                      2
                  B. c.,  but the terminus ad quem could not be later than
                  the third century A. D.  Since the Stein discoveries includ-
                  ed a host of exciting things besides textiles, it was neces-
                  sarily a matter of several years before they could be pub-
                  lished. In 1921  Serindia appeared, comprising .five large
                  volumes. In analyzing the textiles Stein had the collab-
                  oration of Miss F. M.G. Lorimer, a special assistant, and
                  of Fred  H.  Andrews,  head  of the  Amar Singh Tech-
                 nical  Institute,  Srinagar,  Kashmir.  Together  they  pro-
                 duced  an adequate  technical  description  of these  frag-
                 ments/ most  of which  had  to  be  got immediately  be-
                 tween  glass  to  keep  them  from  crumbling.  The  Stein
                 expeditions were republished in 1928 in Innermost Asia
                 with additions and corrections. In 1924 most of the ob-
                  2  Stein, Burlington Magazine,  vol.  XXXVII, p. 5·
                  3   On the  basis  of the drawings  and  photographs of these  frag-
                 ments in Serindia and the Burlington Magazine (see footnote 2),
                 questions  have  arisen  about  the analyses  of some of the  weaves
                 as  published. Since the fragments  are for  the  most part in  India
                 a proper study is  not  now possible;  we  did,  however, check  one
                 of the  questioned  weaves  in  London and found  it  to  be  exactly
                 as  described.  The drawing of this  fragment,  however,  was  mis-
                 leading and we are therefore inclined to believe that the fault lies
                 with the illustrations,  not with  the analyses.


                                         6
   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21